Tinkom v. Purdy
5 Johns. 345
Opinion
The adjournment of the sale to a different place, was a matter of discretion with the constable ; and the question must always be, whether this discretion has been abused. These is no charge of fraud or abuse in the present case ; and the constable could not, therefore, be liable as a trespasser. The judgment below must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Tinkom v. Purdy, 5 Johns. 345 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1810).
5 Johns. 345 (Tinkom v. Purdy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Noland v. Barrett
26 S.W. 692 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
Reynolds v. Hoxsie
6 R.I. 463 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1860)
Richards v. Holmes
59 U.S. 143 (Supreme Court, 1856)
Sherry v. Doe e. d. Lockwood
1 Smith & H. 289 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1849)
M'Donald v. Neilson
2 Cow. 139 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1823)
Alexander v. Gibson
10 S.C.L. 480 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1819)